🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41p9gm$lef@sundog.tiac.net>,
David Chesler <chesler@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
>In article <DDy1u2.9Fw@world.std.com>,
>Stephen Boursy <boursy@world.std.com> wrote:
>>In article <ucvirkpsex.fsf@pace.picante.com>,
>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@pace.picante.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Please respond or I will be forced to continue assuming you only
>>>answer questions which you can easily avoid or where you can sneak
>>>unfounded accusations into the answer.
>>
>>	You know Grant--if I responded to all that addressed me 
>
>You do.
>

	Let's have just a tinge of honesty here David.  I even
ignore most of your posts now even when you quote or refer to me--
you've become uncharateristically insulting since the announcement 
of the Community Empowerment Act--you just don't like rent control.


>>They do.  (Although up in the middle of the night monitoring
>a baby, I've had a lot of free time on my hands.  It's this or TV.)
>

	Congrats by the way---it's safe to say the child will be to 
left of you as it grows to adulthood--there's no room to go further 
to the right.  Just think David--you may at this very moment be 
cuddling a future tenant leader who reacts against Daddy's extremism.


>>	If you have clear question that hasn't already been addressed 
>>please present it in a concise and non-insulting manner and I'll 
>>address it if it's rational.
>
> In the bandwidth you spent explaining why you weren't answering Grant,
>you could have answered his question, which is concise, rational,
>and not more insulting than most reductos ad absurdum.  He asked:
>

	The message itself contained several insults as well as a 
question answered on numerous occassions.  He again posted his question
without insult in ne.general only and I answered it last night in 
ne.general only--it's there if you care to take a look at it although
I suspect you've already read it.  It's interesting though how some
will complain about how much another writes yet feel they've a right
to response to every comment and question they make concerning you.
My use of 'bandwidth' in the above example was to explain that if
he wanted a response it should be presented in a more adult like 
fashion (.i.e. without personal insult).  You yourself used to be
capable of that and hopefully the ability will return--you often have
good points to make even though you're always dead wrong of course.
Leave you guns at the door if you want to debate.

				Steve